1947-04-14, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)

Official Transcript of the American military Tribunal I in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 14 April 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1. Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.

THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.

Any further examination of the witness on the part of any defense counsel?

WOLFRAM SIEVERS — Resumed

BY DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the defendant Blome):

Q: Witness, I should like to question you on two points; one of them concerns your diary entry of 18 August 1944. In your diary there is a note reading:

Professor Blome asks a date from the Reichsfuehrer-SS in order to report to him after 25 August. Points under discussion refer to: 1. Insects

— doesn't interest us;

2. Potato beetles

— doesn't interest us either;

3. 'Poison experiments in connection with Reichsfuehrer SS.

Number 7 reads:

Professor Blome is being pressed anew to test the poison now.

You were already asked about this entry during your direct examination, Dr. Sievers, and if I understood you correctly you testified that this entry referring to poison has some connection or other, or could have some connection, with the attempt on Hitler's life on July 20, 1944. But I am not quite sure that I understood you correctly. Therefore, I should like you to state again briefly just what/the significance of this entry is so far as Dr. Blome is concerned — this entry concerning poison.

A: You are asking me to call on my recollection to an extent that far surpasses human nature. Just let me check on this once more. I said in my direct examination that I wrote into the diary what Dr. Blome told me. It reads:

Poison experiments in connection with Reichsfuehrer-SS with requests for report on 21 July,

That is to say, Blome said to me that Himmler had said something to him on the 21st of July about this matter. That does not mean that Dr. Blome, so far as I recall, said anything to the effect that this poison was connected with the attempt on Hitler, but what Dr. Blome said to Himmler on 21 July, in other words, one day after the attempt. That, of course, he didn't tell me.

Q: I am asking you this, Dr. Sievers, only because you in your direct examination seemed to connect this entry strangely with the events of the 20th of July, and I am not sure whether you expressed yourself correctly or whether we understood you correctly. Perhaps you remember that Dr. Blome, when he was interrogated on the stand, said that this referred to Doryl, that is to say, to that other poison which was found during partisan fighting in the East and which was almost unknown in Germany. Therefore, witness, I should ask you please to exert your memory a bit and say whether or not it is possible, as far as you recall, that this talk in connection with that teletype message, which I think was also the 21st of July, referred to Doryl.

A: Yes, that I remember. Dr. Blome did mention Doryl, but then in my direct examination I didn't express myself clearly for I meant that Dr. Blome had already talked about this with Himmler on the 21st of July. But Dr. Blome said nothing about a connection with the events of 20 July.

Q: Then I have another question, witness, You recall that when Dr. Blome was interrogated on the stand we discussed at some length the card index file which was kept at the Reich Research Council for Dr. Blome and Sauerbruch. You were present at this discussion. This concerns two documents, one is Document 690 concerning Blome and the other is 691, Sauerbruch's card index file. These documents, and a few others that are connected with this matter, are in a supplementary volume.

They have been turned in for Blome document book to be translated and will subsequently be submitted to the Tribunal. Now, you remember that in this card index file for Dr. Blome there are two assignments mentioned of which Dr. Blome asserts that they have nothing to do with him, that through an oversight on the part of the personnel staff they were entered on his card index file, but really should have been put on Dr. Sauerbruch's file card. That is the assignment 0328 of Rascher:

Re-warming after cooling of entire human body; healing, with cases of partial freezing, and adjustment of the human body to cold.

And then the next assignment is 0329, Hirsch-Strassbourg, which reads:

Alteration in the living organism after use of chemical warfare agents.

You remember these documents?

A: Yes.

Q: Now it would interest me to know — now I should like to hear from you something on this subject since you are well informed about the Reich Research Council. Do you know who gave this assignment Rascher, 0328, "Rewarming after general cooling"? Who gave that assignment? Do you know anything about that assignment at all and, if so, just what do you know?

A: The Rascher assignment is, so far as the contents are concerned, the same as the assignment that Himmler formulated and which was submitted here as a document. When on my initiative these assignments were joined with the Reich Research Council, the rules of the Reich Research Council demanded that the researcher himself, that is to say, both Rascher and Hirt, had to make their application to the Reich Research Council. Thus it is altogether possible that this is a false entry because it is true that at the time the organization of the Reich Research Council was suffering from lack of personnel, but on the other hand I consider it quite possible that, for example, Rascher, when he turned in his application for research work, referred to the fact that he had connections with Dr. Blome, which as you know is true in connection with cancer research and with Polygal, and that thereupon the entry was made on both card index files in order to inform both Dr. Sauerbruch and Dr. Blome of the matter.

But both assignments were assigned through Dr. Sauerbruch who alone was competent for that. But with regard to the Hirt assignment I can tell you something of material importance. In addition to this card index there are copies of the original research assignments; in the card index cards, for reasons of space, there is only a very brief notation of the title of the research assignment. Both the card index and the copies of the originals were in the camp at Kranzberg, the interrogation camp where I myself saw them in 1945. The Hirt assignment reads:

Fluorescent microscopic examinations on the behavior of Lost gas in living organisms.

If this complete formulation were present here, then this matter would not need be discussed before this Tribunal because this research in living organisms in liver, pancreas and so on, then, as the expert for the prosecution, namely, Dr. Alexander, said, these experiments could only be carried out on animals. Therefore, in these Hirt experiments they could only have been animal experiments.

Q: Could you please reiterate the precise title of that research assignment, such as you saw it in the Camp Kranzberg?

A: "Fluorescent microscopical examination of the reaction of Lost gas in living organisms."

Q: Mr. Sievers, because of your activities in the Reich Research Council do you know what order number Sauerbruch's department had and what number Dr. Blome had?

A: Every one of the 30 plenipotentiaries and department leaders had an order number but I cannot say, from memory, just which number each one had.

Q: To refresh your memory, I put two documents to you that I have received from the Prosecution. These are photo copies, document No. 700 and document No. 699. When I examined Dr. Blome I already stated that I was going to include these 2 documents in a subsequent volume and submit them later to the Tribunal. I have received these photo copies from the Prosecution —

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, it is my understanding that Dr. Sauter wishes to establish the file number on one Dr. Sauerbruch and of Dr. Blome. The prosecution will stipulate that Sauerbruch's number was No. I and Blome's was No. 15, and these questions will not be necessary.

BY DR. SAUTER:

Q: You are getting now the list of order numbers and also the list of the various departments. These are Prosecution documents and not defense documents.

A: Yes, I knew this list and it is correct.

Q: And you see from the list that Professor Blome had order number 15?

A: That is right.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Prosecution has stipulated that Dr. Blome's number was 15 and Dr. Sauerbruch's was 10.

DR. SAUTER: In that case I need not ascertain it again.

Q: Then I have one more question. Even if you are a layman, can you, because of your activities in the Reich Research Council, confirm that an assignment, such as for example, rewarming human beings, or effecting changes in the human organism, does not belong to Department 15 but to Department 10, which is General and Classical Medicine? You have already said this more or less indirectly? but I would like you to say it specifically now.

A: I can tell you that Dr. Breuer, who was Dr. Sauerbruch's expert in the Reich Research Council, told me at that time that Dr. Sauerbruch gave these assignments.

Q: Now one last short question. In your direct examination you stated that you yourself were in principle opposed to all human being experiments, and expressed yourself to this effect to Himmler. How, then, did it happen that you were so opposed to human being experiments? Can you explain that more precisely?

A: The reasons were the following: When, on Easter of 1942, I spoke with Himmler about this, I was under the recent impression of my first visit to a concentration camp. Before that I had nothing to do with concentration camps and this visit moved me greatly. Moreover? I had Hirt's report on the Jewish Bolshevist collection of skulls; and at the end of March Himmler ordered that Hirt should, in connection with the Lost experiments, be more closely affiliated to the Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage]. I also knew Rascher, although only slightly, and had an unpleasant impression of him; and I knew that Himmler had acted as protector of this research, and that it could not be seen, in view of Himmler's personality, just where this activity would stop. All of these factors played a role in inducing me to make the effort to persuade Himmler to disassociate this activity from the Ahnenerbe. That was the primary reason I had for expressing myself as I did to Himmler. Over and beyond that I wanted to attempt to interrupt all this research activity if I possibly could, because I, personally, and let me emphasize that this is a purely emotional matter, repudiated human being experiments, no matter under what conditions they took place, and held them to be ethically intolerable.

I saw this as my humane duty at that time. However, I emphasize that I am not a doctor of medicine, nor am I a physician; I did not have any academic degrees since I never graduated from a university. Until this Easter conversation with Himmler in 1942, I had never spoken either with a doctor or a lawyer on the question of the admissibility of human being experiments, so that my point of view was an entirely personal one. Only during the course of this trial, and in view of the material here submitted about human experiments in all countries and during all periods of time, have I realized that this is a series of most difficult problems, which has persuaded me that my attitude heretofore has been one-sided. Even though after the Easter conversation in 1942 the effort was made by various physicians to make it clear to me that in the interests of medical progress, and for the good of humanity, many problems could not be treated through animal experiments but only could be clarified through human being experiments; the great scientific importance of the high altitude experiments as a pre-requisite for flight at high altitudes and that conditions cannot be ascertained unless through human experiments was brought home to me through intrusive questioning by a high ranking American Medical Officer in 1945 in England, where I had been specially brought to give information about this, I could, however, not answer the many questions he put to me, because I am not a scientist, for which he erroneously held me.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have no further questions. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions to this witness on the part of any defense counsel?

There being none the Prosecution may cross examine.

MR. HARDY: Before we proceed to the cross-examination of Mr. Sievers, I would like to clarify for the record your last statement, you were in England; and it came over in the translation it was in 1944, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: 1945.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. HARDY:

Q: Mr. Sievers, you were a member of the Secret Resistance Movement, whose purpose was to overthrow the Hitler regime, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, you were willing to risk your life by working with the inner circle pretending to be an ardent NSDAP member so that you could gain information to transmit to the leaders of the Resistance movement, is that right?

A: I was prepared to sacrifice my life for this if necessary.

Q: And your purpose was to gain information to transmit to the leaders of the Resistance Movement?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, why was the Resistance Movement so intent upon overthrowing the Nazi Regime?

A: I don't understand the question. Since one of the main reaproaches on the part of the Allies against the Germans is that there was no German Resistance Movement; and since we did carry on this resistance I cannot understand the point of your question.

Q: Now, your purpose was to overthrow the Hitler Regime and in carrying out that purpose you were willing to risk your life in your capacity in the Ahnenerbe, wherein you were in the position to gain valuable information which could be transmitted to the leaders of this Resistance Movement; now, inasmuch as you were a member of this Resistance Movement and apparently a strong member, what was the reason for the Resistance Movement being so intent in overthrowing the Nazi Regime; what did they have against the Nazi Regime? Do you understand the question?

A: We rejected the centralized form of Government of the Nazi Government. We regarded the party as a whole as consisting of riffraff. We recognized their Socialism as a swindle, because in reality agrarian feudilism and Big Industry were furthered.

Q: Are there any further reasons, Mr. Sievers?

A: These main reasons I have just mentioned can, of course, be supplemented by any number of details.

Q: And then you also yourself, that is personally, subscribed to these views of the resistance movement, didn't you?

A: Of course.

Q: And now, I assume that at the present time you would be violently opposed to the rise of such a type of rule in Germany in the future, and that you would be willing to do whatever you could to prevent it, is that a correct assumption on my part?

A: Our basic orientation was not based on experience that we had after 1933, but we saw this era drawing near before, and, of course, as it was then it is now our wish not to see a Tolitarian Regime arise again.

Q: Let me be a little more specific; would you be in favor now of having Hitler rise to power once again here in Germany?

A: After what I have just said at great length about these matters I simply cannot answer that question. It does not make sense.

Q: You would do all within your power, if you were in a position to do so, to avoid any rise of such an organization of the Nazis to the realm or the helm here in Germany, wouldn't you?

A: Of course.

Q: Then I assume therefore that you would be willing to tell us, that is the Tribunal and the German people, all you know about the activities of the Nazi Regime, to the end that the German people will be fully informed of such activities and best be in a position to guard themselves against the rise of such a Government in the future?

A: I have always declared myself to do so, but unfortunately it was only under the protection of this High Tribunal that I had a chance to speak of our activities at any great length. From the very beginning, at the very first day of my interrogation in 1945 I pointed this out, but the result simply was that I was treated worse. Consequently, I had no reason to press myself forward. Then in December 1945 I made a written statement on this subject. In the interrogation before the Commission I was, because of an objection on the part of the Prosecution, not allowed to talk about these matters. In the IMT also I was very limited, and when I made a written statement on this subject in August of 1946, I did not hear anything further. In other words, it is not my fault that many of these matters have not come to light, which it would perhaps have been very expedient to have come to light; and during my direct examination on Friday, you yourself raised an objection about my speaking on these matters.

Q: Now, Mr. Sievers, inasmuch as you are willing to tell us what you know about the activities of the Nazi Regime, I wish you would enlighten this Tribunal further on these experiments that are the subject of this indicement. These are activities which took place under the Nazi regime with typical Nazi actions, and you are in position to know just what each and every one of these defendants did to further such experimentation on human beings; are you now fully able and willing to tell us how each one of these defendants participated in these experiments so we can get a good clear picture and the Tribunal can render a decision which will be a complete story; will you do that for us now?

A: I am of course prepared to answer your question, but as examination and interrogation has already proved, I know very few of my co-defendants. The persons who participated in the experiments that I know of, namely Hirt and Rascher, are not here in the dock; and regarding the other experiments that took place outside my sphere, I am unfortunately not so informed as to be able to give you detailed information, which otherwise I should naturally be ready to do.

Q: Now, Mr. Sievers, were any of the defendants members of the Ahnenerbe Society? — Did you hear my question?

A: Yes, I understood you. We must discriminate as is evident from the statutes, between the three groups of members of the Ahnenerbe. Every German could become a member of the Ahnenerbe. These were the so-called participating members. The scientific collaborators could only, by a special act on the part of the Society become active members and then there were the so-called corresponding members. Of the co-defendants only Rudolf Brandt was a ordinary member of the Society, and as far as I know no one else.

Q: Now, did any of the other member's, such as Brandt or Handloser or any of the defendants, did any of these defendants have subordinates who were members of the Ahnenerbe Society?

A: The number of ordinary members ran into one or two thousand; now whether or not there were subordinates among them, I don't know and I don't know them by name or personally. Concerning the active members I don't know this. Rascher was a member of the Luftwaffe and a University Professor, therefore, I cannot say just what the subordinating relationship would be there.

Q: Who were the more important members of the Ahnenerbe society?

A: I have already said that they comprised roughly sixty-one persons; namely the various department chiefs and those who had important research assignments.

Q: That is as outlined in your Document Book No. 1; the chart you submitted to the Tribunal?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, Mr. Sievers, of course you know it is of considerable interest to everyone as to how the fantastic program of experimentation was conceived; now in your position as a deputy in the Reichs Research Council and as the Reichs business Manager of the Ahnenerbe Society, were you able to ascertain who conceived the idea of medical experiments on human beings in the concentration camps? Now I know the element of experiments on human beings is an age old idea, but I mean here in Germany, who conceived the idea to experiment on concentration camp inmates?

A: So far as documentary material makes it clear to me, Rascher played a decisive role in this, and Rascher had close connections with Himmler. Himmler, who always exaggerated things and over-did them, had these experiments on inmates in concentration camps carried out and also pointed out the possibility of such experiments. In other words I can only deduct from the way the high altitude experiments came about, of which Rascher was evidently the inaugurator. Then, as also is shown by the documents, it was Milch who, in his turn went to Himmler to have the freezing experiments carried out, and then later there were added the sea-water experiments.

Q: Well, then, here you have heard all the evidence in this Tribunal and from your own personal knowledge of the sea-water experiments, the freezing experiments and high altitude experiments; do you think that Himmler, exclusively, without any suggestions from other people, conceived this idea of this sphere of experimentation in the concentration camps?

A: It is my opinion, as I have already said, that the basic cause for all this was the connection between Rascher and Himmler, but then when it was soon what possibilities there were other persons went to Himmler in order to extend such work, for the idea of the freezing experiments was certainly not Himmler's own idea.

Q: Now, in addition to that, Mr. Sievers, Himmler like yourself and myself was a lay-man, he had no knowledge of medical research, would he be approached by Rascher in the instance of high altitude experiments, by Milch for freezing experiments, perhaps by Hirt for lost experiments, or by various other individuals to secure human beings or to have made available inmates of the concentration camps for the purpose of conducting the experiments, now would Himmler, or you, or I, have been able to determine whether these experiments were justified without first consulting a specialist in the medical research field?

A: No, and that was my reason for wanting to break away from experiments of this sort in the Ahnenerbe, because there was no specialist there who could supervise such things as a specialist. Himmler arrogated these things to himself, he interfered personally in the experiments, which can be seen not only from the documents themselves, but also in that letter from Wolf to Milch where it is even explicitly stated to what extent Himmler personally took part in this research and interfered in it; but I consider Himmler anything but a specialist or an authority. He, however, as I said, arrogated that to himself and Herr Gobhardt described Himmler very well in this respect.

Q: Well, now, you recall that the date 1943, in the fall of 1943, from that point on all matters of research had to go through Gebhardt and Grawitz before Himmler would act on it; now do you know of any other advisors Himmler had so that he could justify sanction these experiments?

A: No, I remember no others, and that can be seen from the order of 15 May 1944 where he includes specially Grawitz and Gebhardt in these matters.

Q: Well, now, from your knowledge of these various activities, what individuals within the frame-work of the German Government, that is the entire German Government taken into consideration, what individuals had knowledge of these experiments?

A: It is hard to say who these persons were by name, but it was Himmler's custom about matters in which, in his opinion, he could especially show off, to talk about them in conversations. I once was a witness at a luncheon for two submarine captains, who had come to headquarters to receive decorations, and very proudly he told these submarine captains the results of his freezing experiments. That is what I can say of my own knowledge because I happened to have been there. Whether he also spoke about this elsewhere, and to whom, that I do not know. On the other hand, he forbade reports being given to people on the outside, so that with the exception of Milch and Goering no nondoctor was to be informed of these matters.

Q: Well, now Mr. Sievers, you were in the position in the Reichsforschungsrat [Reich Research Council] where you were able to observe a great deal; you fully realize, of course, that the SS had experimental research problems, that the Wehrmacht had experimental research problems, the civilian sector had experimental research problems; and due to the chaotic conditions in German from 1941 to 1945 when all were engaged in all-out warfare; it must have been necessary to coordinate these activities, so that you could utilize the supplies and activities to the best ad vantage.

Now in the Reichsforschungsrat, or in what organization in the Wehrmacht and SS, who was the coordinator of these activities; who was the person or group of persons that studied these various activities so that they would not have a duplication of effort, in other words so that they would not have high altitude experiments going on in each concentration camp, and therefore it would be understood that nine of the research task dealing, with high altitude experiment were necessary, who was the individual or group of individuals, who engaged in this coordination of this research, that we see here in this case?

A: Many experiments had been made in this direction, first of all it was the competent expert departmental leaders. For example for medicine, Prof. Dr. Sauerbruch. Then, when the conditions arose which as you have just described, the growing chaotic conditions, required a closer coordination, and the Military Research Association (Wehrforschungsgemeinschaft) was called into being, and Professor Osenberg was to coordinate. However, Professor Osenberg was a machine engineer and he had many arguments with Professor Sauerbruch. For that reason, in 1945 it was decided that Professor Brandt was to be in charge of all medical matters, however, this coordination in the hands of Dr. Brandt coincided with the military collapse, so it never become effective.

Q: Now, when you speak of Sauerbruch and Osenberg; that is within the Reichs Research Council?

A: Yes.

Q: Was it theoretically the idea that the Reichs Research Council was to be the coordinating agent in this field of medical research?

A: That was not the idea, because medicine was only one department among thirty in the Reichs Research Council. Only in 1944, when matters were concentrated and coordinated several departments were united and given preference, and the number of researches conducted by the others were limited. Medicine was one of the research assignments given preference, and since Osenberg could not carry out this coordination, Dr. Brandt was assigned to it.

Q: Well now, one last question along these lines of coordination and these experimental ideas, which were conceived; suppose you and I together had gone to Himmler with an idea, say to experiment with Lost, whom would Himmler have called into his office to advise him about the feasibility of Sievers and Hardy's research problem?

A: Since we are two lay-men, Himmler in this case would have called Grawitz, but if you or I brought him a proposal made by a professor, then that authority would have sufficed for him and he himself would have decided the matter.

Q: Do you recall the affidavit of Oswald Pohl where he had a paragraph pertaining to your name, where Oswald Pohl stated, in the introductory paragraph, I don't have the document here now, it is Document No-065, where in it states that he thought Himmler had men like Brandt, Conti, Grawitz, etc., advising him in these matters, now do you think that Oswald Pohl was correct in his assumption, Do you recall that particular section?

A: Yes, I remember that paragraph, but I don't believe — at least from my own experience — that I can confirm this. The close connection between Himmler and Grawitz was known to me, Himmler never thought very much, of Conti, and the relations between Himmler and Brandt were not known to me at all. Himmler never spoke if Brandt; but of course I do not know to what extent Himmler had conversations with these these men as, I was never present.

Q: Now, Mr. Sievers, during the course of your direct examination you referred many times to the horrible conditions in concentration camps which you observed when you visited them; will you please describe in detail to the Tribunal just what you saw when you went into these concentration camps?

A: The total impression was what really shocked me. I could not visit or inspect the whole concentration camp, because when I arrived there I was taken right to the department I was visiting. I had to cross the large roll court, in one corner of which was Rascher's department, and there I saw how the prisoners had to line up who were to go to work. It was this that gave me the picture of which I spoke here, namely, that the men, like myself, with all sorts of signs, red and green, had to live here together with prisoners of all types, in one single community.

Q: Now did you get the impression when you visited the camp you spoke of horrible conditions in the camps, did you get the impression as stated here and as stated many times before these Tribunals, that the concentration camps, were like boy-scouts recreational centers?

A: I don't think you could say so, no. The set-up was such for instance the sick-bay was equipped with good medical equipment and clean, but this question of cleanliness was easy to achieve as it has often been said that when the concentration camps was visited everything was scrubbed and cleaned, and thus the dwelling accomodations made an exellent impression; but it is not just a clean house alone, that makes life tolerable. As I said, what struck me was everyone thrown together here.

Q: Did you see, any of the inmates drinking champagne?

A: No, I did not see that.

Q: Well now, we have been told that all the inmates were very happy in these camps, they ran about gleefully, played harmonicas, etc.; did it impress you that way, Mr. Sievers?

A: No, I did not have that impression.

Q: Now, what I am getting at, Mr. Sievers, is do you think that any official visitor would have seen the same things in these camos that you saw?

A: That depends when he went there. In general the concentration camps were empty during the day, because the inmates were taken outside to work, and this was also the case in Dachau. Only twice when the people were going out to work did I have the total impression of all these thousands of inmates, who had to line up, A visitor, say between nine and eleven o'clock in the morning, saw very few people, mostly they were orderlies and he saw empty barracks, so that the net impression was altogetner askew. I hold it to be not out of the question and in view of the whole system of propaganda, I believe it was certain that the visitors were taken to those camps purposely during those hours for that reason.

Q: Now, how many times did you visit concentrations camps?

A: In all the years, I was in Dachau eight times, but not always in the concentration camps, because the entomological institute was outside of the concentration camps. It was only twice that I saw all the inmates and I gained the impression about which I spoke. All the other times the camp was just about empty during the day, then you would gain the impression that there was so few people. For example, the people who could not work, because they were sick, they were walking around, and you would get the impression which really contradicted what it really was like.

Q: Well now did you visit any other camps other than Dachau?

A: I was twice in Natzweiler, which, however, was under construction. The buildings set up there were quite different from that at Dachau, and I did not see where the people worked. Working conditions in Natzweiler in the quarry were considered particularly terrible, but we were not allowed there. Then I once visited Oranienburg, but I did not get into the camp itself, only in the work shop, and other wise did not become acquainted with other concentration camps.

Q: Well now in the course of all of your visits, how many of the visits that you had, are in the category of an official visit? For instance, you were with Himmler one time at Dachau. I assume that would have been an official visit. Now how were conditions that you saw?

A: I was never in Dachau with Himmler.

Q: Didn't you go with Himmler to Dachau in connection with the high altitude experiments?

A: No, I wasn't present when Himmler took a look at those experiments.

Q: Do you think conditions would have been different on an official visit than visits you made, or would your visit have been an official visit also?

A: I never made an official visit to Dachau because I was always there for official conversations.

Q: Well now did these conditions, the horrible conditions you have narrated here before this Tribunal, were they an open secret among the members of the medical service of the Wehrmacht?

A: We were not allowed to talk about what we saw in concentration camps. That was explicitly set down in the paper that I had to sign. Moreover, I had no opportunity to talk with members of the medical inspectorate of the Wehrmacht because I did not know anybody in it.

Q: Now, doctor, do you think you understand — I don't know whether the interpretation is difficult, but do you understand the expression, "open secret"? That is a familiar expression to you, isn't it?

A: Yes, I know that expression.

Q: Well then you don't think the conditions which you have narrated about the concentration camps would have been an open secret among the medical services of the SS, among the members of the medical service of the SS?

A: That the conditions in the concentration camps were not ideal must in, my opinion, have been known within the SS, but the concepts of "ideal" and "sufficient" were not inform.

Q: Well then you would think that a person with the rank of Obergruppenfuehrer [Lieutenant General] would have no knowledge of the conditions in the concentration camps, that he just would not casually more or less hear about it from one of his friends or otherwise? Do you exclude the possibility that a max with the rank of Gruppenfuehrer [General] or even a Standartenfuehrer [Colonel] would have no knowledge of the methods in which the concentration camps were being operated?

A: For a certain category of these leaders that may be true, but I consider it out of the question that an Obergruppenfuehrer, in whose official shpere there was a concentration camp, did not know what went on inside it.

Q: Now, doctor, did you ever make any attempt during the course of these years to save some of this incriminating material so that when the war ended or when the resistance movement had accomplished their objective, if you had had that good fortune, did you make attempts to save the files of these criminal experiments, or did you make any attempt to retain this information so that you could aid in bringing home to the German people just what the basic activities of these Nazis were?

A: I kept my documents on this in the Reich Research Council, and these documents along with the other documents were taken to Roslar, as I was later told. All of the material of the information office of the Reich Research Council was there, and my documents were taken there also.

Q: Then in document NO-088, it is most difficult for me to understand why you being a resistance worker would have written such a letter as appears in document Book 9, which is Prosecution Exhibit 182. I think you are familiar with the letter. It is a letter addressed to SS Standartenfuehrer Dr. Rudolf Brandt, wherein you are eliciting three proposals for the dissolution and destruction of the Jewish skeleton collection at Strassbourg. Now herein you state:

The skeleton collection as such is not conspicious. It could be declared as remnants of corpses, apparently left in the anotomical institute by the French, and ordered to be cremated. Decision on the following proposals is requested:

1. Collection can be preserved.

2. Collection is to be partly destroyed.

3. Entire collection is to be dissolved.

That is signed Sievers. Now here you haven't acted consistent with those beliefs that you had, and it would seem to me that you would want to save this material so that it could be received by the Allies, so that they would be fully aware of this horrible crime, killing these Jewish people to make a skeleton collection. Why did you act in this manner, doctor?

A: In my direct examination I have already said that this proposal was not of my own. It was not simply the question of the skeleton collection alone, but of all measures, measures concerning Hirt's department as a whole in Strassbourg; and Hirt wrote to me, for this reason, and I telephoned to him, and he himself made this suggestion; which I, not knowing what the situation was at the University of Strassbourg in the matter of anotomy, and I could not have known this, could not have made; and I, orientated myself according to what Hirt said, and passed on the teletype to Brandt; but after all what should I have done if Hirt asked me what was to be done, and what would have happened if I had said to Hirt: "Leave everything where it is, so that the Allies will find it"? I would have been shot the next day.

Q: Well now you state here in the letter that you would leave remnants of these corpses around the Strassbourg laboratories which would indicate they were apparently left in the anatomical institute by the French, that is a fine how-do-you-do-, isn't it, trying to put this crime off on the French. Whose idea is that? It was Siever's signature.

A: I have already told you that this was not my idea but Hirt's, and I can only explain this as follows: When the University of Strassbourg was taken over there were in the anatomical department, of course, corpses. In other words, I simply transmitted what Hirt told me. That was not my suggestion.

Q: Well now, did you over express any satisfaction to the fact that all of this data had been destroyed or was that merely that you were transmitting an order for Hirt? Did you feel happy that this was destroyed or did you feel sad that it was destroyed, so that you could not bring it to the attention of the Allies or other members of the resistance movement when the inevitable end came. In other words, Dr. Seivers you were not pleased that this material had been destroyed, were you?

A: I was not at all pleased about this because there were enough documents describing this whole matter available. Hirt's subsequent statement that the collection was destroyed was not true. I was not informed what went on here and the various questions that were asked of me I could not answer. I had to ask Hirt's advice.

Q: Well now this teletype to Brandt was dated the 5th September 1944; and true, as you state, it was indicated they were not destroyed at that time, but were destroyed at a later time-around October, 1944, the skeleton collection was destroyed. Now, Mr. Seivers, you have been a little inconsistent. He have here a letter dated 20 January, 1945, which is document NO-975, which will be offered for identification as Prosecution Exhibit No. 479. — Do you have a copy?

A: No, I don't.

Q: Now, this letter is dated 20 January 1945. It is addressed to "Dear Comrade Hirt":

Your letter of 4 January dealing with Tuebingen being declared as a hospital town has been forwarded to me from Waischeafeld to this place. I have interceded for this plan, but I have desisted for the time being from submitting it to the Reichsfuehre-SS: first of all it will be necessary to come to an agreement with the Foreign Office and the Reich Ministry Speer.

Your report on Strasbourg has duly come to hand. Many thanks for it. I shall be back in Waischenfeld at the end of the month, and if no further notice will have arrived there in the noontime, I shall see to it that all letters mailed to you recently shall be dispatched once again.

Paris as well as London is taking quite active an interest in the Anatomic Institute of Strasbourg and regret that you have not been seized. In the meantime you will probably have received, or shall so in the very near future, an inquiry of the Foreign Office via the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs and Education referring to this. We may be very glad that all data and papers on that work have been destroyed in time. The enemy could not offer any concrete statements so far. As I have already written to you, I should be very glad if you would make a short trip out of your way, to Waischenfeld, at the opportunity of one of your journeys to Wuerzburg.

With best wishes end kind regards as usual.

Heil Hitler

Yours /s/ Sievers.

That signature is a stamp. This happens to be a file copy.

Well now, you have expressed glee here, have you not, that the data and papers at Strasbourg University have been destroyed?

A: Hirt told me this.

MR. HARDY: This is a good breaking point, your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess.

(A recess was taken)